You've got a point. If it was washed, one would assume it had been worn at some point in time. So we're back to square one. Maybe Chromablast requires lighter pressure or less time or lower temp in order for the overprint not to show up so much for so long.
Now that the sun is shining, I took a closer look and the overprint area around my image is still visible, but barely. You have to know it's there.
Last edited by lben; August 15th, 2008 at 09:03 AM.
I have a swing-away press, but I thought Ts had to have light pressure. Does the heavy pressure make the overprint area more noticeable or less? Wouldn't that scorch it? Also, what time do you recommend for a heavy press on Chromablast?
Heavy pressure will help drive the polymer into the shirt. The excess is less noticeable on a white shirt, but is still visible on a color shirt as shown by the picture above. It does not scorch the shirt. Here is what I use: heavy pressure, 375 degrees F and 37 seconds.
I made this T-shirt with Chromablast. It had a slight hand until the first washing, now no hand. The picture doesn't feel any different than the rest of the shirt. This pic was taken after 2 washings now. Picture hasn't faded at all, colors are still just as vibrant and the trace around the image isn't noticable anymore, but it was before the first wash. I had trimmed it to about 1/2 inch around the image.
Hi Iben, I am reading your post and am giggling because the way you describe this shirt with Chromablast is the same exact way I would describe a shirt using JPSS (Jetprosofstretch).
Except sometimes with JPSS, depending on the shirt, one cannot even see the polymer window.
Quote:
I know now that I need to trim it in as tight as I can. Yeah it's a pain, and expensive at that, but the shirts I've made with regular transfer paper don't come close. Those have a heavy hand and they start to pop off the material after a few times in the washer.
Not with JPSS. It is an excellent paper with superior results. Here is a picture of a shirt I did with JPSS. I did not trim around the image at all, and I washed this shirt in bleach many times.
(You will not see a window bc on a Jerzees HW 50/50 using JPSS, there is no perceivable window. Another user on the forum has noted the same result as mine.) Great stuff there.
The only faults I can find with it are the cost and that yellowish ring around an image that can be trimmed way back.
JPSS is ecomonical to use, and any perceivable polymer window on a white shirt is clear, not yellow, that also makes it more presentable.
The "ring" that is mentioned is caused by the polymer coating on the transfer paper that seals the ink into the fabric transfering from the paper to the fabric surface. Cutting it away is the only true way to eliminate it - so it is not there to transfer to the fabric.
Like Mark said, the heavy pressure will actually help push that coating further into the fabric weave, assisting in a great transfer with lasting results and a nicer appearance.
Quote:
But that does come out in the washer. I heard that we're supposed to wash the shirts after printing anyhow. Did I hear wrong?
This is additional labor and expense I know I would not want to deal with, and like you guys said, I don't think a washed shirt will fly as "new". Not sure you can even do this and sell it as "new merchandise". That one may need more research to confirm, but could present an issue if a customer didn't want to pay for it claiming it is not new. Also, too many allergies out there to know which detergent would be appropriate. This is a box best left unopened, imho.
Okay, I just finished the wash tests on the ChromaBlast shirt that I printed at the Atlas Screen Supply booth during the Chicago ISS Show. At most shows, the shirts printed with ChromaBlast are white. I wanted to do one on a color shirt. Thanks to Brian at Direct2Shirt for giving me the yellow / tan colored shirt. I printed the same design on the front and back of the shirt. It was pressed at 375 degrees F with heavy pressure (took my weight to close the Geo Knight press) for 40 seconds. I purposely did not cut around the design so it would make seeing the polyer window easier on the wash test sample. Below are some of the pictures I took (most of which are without the flash and I am not a professional photographer - I admit I suck at taking pictures, but you should get the picture). Here is a link to the entire photo gallery for more pictures with explanation of each picture - DAGuide/ChromaBlast - Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting
What I noticed is the polymer on the shirt that has been washed actually is darker (i.e. shows up more) than the one that was not washed. This is probably because of the way I washed the sample. I try to do the wash test in a manner that your worse customer would use. This would be putting all types of clothing (including towels) into the same load, let it sit in the washer for an hour after the cleaning is done and then putting it into the dryer for 45 minutes. So I imagine that the lint from the towels and other fabrics clinged to the polymer on the shirt while in the dryer and thus making it more noticeable.
I just want to add one more thing. I do think ChromaBlast does a good job on white shirts. If this is your market, then it is a product you should consider compared to other transfer papers. Based on the pictures, hopefully you can tell that there is very minimal color fading. I just think if you are going to do color shirts, you are going to need to trim any type of transfer paper. The recommended way for trimming in my opinion is to use an optical registration cutter and print-cut it. However, you need to make sure that your transfer paper is weedable (i.e. remove the polymer from the paper backing) or you will need to use a carrier sheet to properly cut it with an optical registration cutter. The ChromaBlast paper is not weedable, so you will need to use a carrier sheet. For more info on print-cut, do a search in this forum for print-cut or Roland GX-24. There are a ton of posts on this.
Thanks for the pictures and the info Mark. Sure these are helping a lot of people reading this thread. Chromablast seems to be one of those things, where people had heard the name, but were not quite sure what it actually was.
I am glad you subjected the samples to a 'real world' wash test. That is after all, what most customers will do.
I have recently used the chromablast paper with the epson claria hi definitition ink on a 100 percent cotton tee and it worked beautifully. I have washed and dried it twice so far and it is stilling holding the color. Here's is link with pics of the results after two washes. The feel is soft, not rough. It feels like sublimation.
Have you tried to print a sample with colors (not just black) and seen how it holds up in a wash test? Just wondering. It still does not resolve the issue of leaving the polymer window on a colored shirt. But it is another alternative for people to consider. Nice job.
Hi. Thanks for supplying the pictures Jan. I am sure this experiment of yours will be of interest to lots of people on here.
I am 100 percent certain that a better alternative to direct to garment printers, would be a transfer paper that placed pigment inks onto cotton when heat and pressure was applied. This ideal transfer paper may already be in existence, but sitting in some research lab somewhere and not released onto the market yet?
Sublimation is superb for hard substrates, the the cost of sublimation garments over cotton, puts it at a significant commercial disadvantage. Plus the fact that cotton is generally preferred over polyester.
I just completed a color tee and it's in the wash now for the second time. The first wash and dry held very well and I believe that the second one will also. I will post a pic when it has dried.
Obviously it needs some more washes to make totally sure it holding up, as I've tried dark transfers that looked great after two washes, but started to crack up on the fifth, or sixth wash. So far your experiment is looking good though.
I for one, would love to see the look on the faces of the people at Sawgrass, if it was proven you could just use regular ink with their papers. A 110ml bottle of Chromablast ink costs about £90 ($180), whereas pigment and dye inks retail for about a fifth of that cost.
This is a discussion about Why hasn't Chromablast replaced conventional garment sublimation? that was posted in the Dye Sublimation section of the forums.
Re: Why hasn't Chromablast replaced conventional garment sublimation? 
